Recovery Factors and

Reserves in
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs

Roberto Aguilera is president of Pore Classification

Servipetrol Ltd. in Calgary, Alberta. He is
a petroleum engineering graduate from
the Universidad de America at Bogota,
Colombia, and holds masters and Ph.D.
degrees in petroleum engineering from
the Colorado School of Mines. He has
rendered consulting and training services
to oil and gas companies worldwide. He
is author of the book Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs, PennWell, Tulsa, OK (1980,
1995), and co-author of the books The Technology of Artificial
Lift Methods, Vol. 4, PennWell (1984) with Kermit Brown et al.;
Horizontal Wells, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, Texas (1991);
and Determination of Oil and Gas Reserves, The Petroleum
Society Monograph No.1 (1994).
Introduction
Conventional reservoir engineering techniques and naturally
fractured reservoirs do not mix well. The use of conventional
techniques has led to underestimating or overestimating recover-
ies and reserves in many naturally fractured reservoirs worldwide.
This paper is a follow-up to a previous article dealing with
advances in the study of naturally fractured reservoirs(l). In that
article I concentrated on types of fractures, how to intersect them,
and on key items associated with data acquisition.
In this paper I provide general information dealing with recov-
It is possible to make preliminary estimates of productive char-
acteristics of common reservoir porosity types following a classi-
fication proposed by Coalson et al(9). In this classification porosity
classes are defined first by the geometry of the pores, and second
by pore size.
Included in the geometry are the following pore categories:
intergranular, intercrystalline, vuggy, and fracture. The combina-
tion of any of them can give origin to dual and even multi-
porosity behavior.
Included in the pore size are megaporosity, macroporosity,
mesoporosity, and microporosity.
Table 1 shows typical petrophysical parameters for this classifi-
cation adapted from a combination of Coalson et al.(9), and
White(lO). Included in this Table are the geometry, pore size, pore
throat radius at 35% mercury saturation (Winland R35 values),
permeability to air, immobile water saturation and typical capil-
lary pressure curves coded A through D. These capillary pressures
are shown on Figure I.
The aperture of the fractures and vugs deserve further discus-
sion. From laboratory work and experience it has been found that
nut shells and plastic materials can stop circulation losses in frac-
tures with apertures as large as 5,000 microns. If in a given natu-
;<:1
01
H,
;;:,
~,

ery estimates and reserves in naturally fractured reservoirs. The ~I

<1;1
paper is intended for the general interest reader who is not a spe- "'I
:><1
cialist in the field.
!31
~I
fill
:>:,
Recovery "'"
U) E
",1
Not all fractured reservoirs are the same. So talking about frac-
tured reservoirs in general is not good enough. My recommenda-
tion is to initially classify the reservoir according to (I) geologic,
(2) pore system, (3) hydrocarbon storage, and (4) matrix/fracture
interaction points of view.

Geologic Classification
From a geologic point of view the fractures can be classified as
being tectonic (fold and/or fault related), regional, contractional
(diagenetic), and surface related(l-3). Historically most hydrocar-
bon production has been obtained from tectonic fractures, fol-
A •
o 65 100%
lowed by regional fractures and followed by contractional frac-
WATER SATURATION
tures. In general, surface related fractures are not important from
FIGURE 1: Capillary pressure curves (adapted from Coalson et
the point of view of hydrocarbon production. When classifying al'(9».
the fractures determine fracture dip and strike.

July 1999, Volume 38, No.7 15

rally fractured reservoir these materials cannot stop circulation
losses the conclusion is reached that the apertures are bigger than
5,000 microns. In fact, secondary porosity apertures can actually
reach cavern-size in some instances.
Storage Classification
From a storage point of view the fractures can be classified(3) as
being of Type A, B or C. Many reservoirs that would otherwise be
non-productive are commercial thanks to the presence of natural
fractures ,(8)
In reservoirs of Type A the bulk of the hydrocarbon storage is
in the matrix porosity and a small amount of storage is in the frac-
tures. However, the matrix typically has a very low permeability
while the natural fractures tend to have a much larger
permeability.
There are many reservoirs with fractures of tectonic origin
where the primary porosity (matrix) tends to be occluded or has
extremely low permeability and consequently does not contribute
any hydrocarbon storage. In these cases a large number of
microfractures might be present that play the role of "matrix"
porosity. This is due to the pervasiveness of tectonic fractures that
exist from a macro scale to the grain size scale (they are very frac-
tal). In these cases micro and macrofractures compose the usual
dual-porosity system.
In reservoirs of Type B approximately half the hydrocarbon
storage is in the matrix and half is in the fractures. The matrix is
tight and the fractures are much more permeable than the matrix.
In reservoirs of Type C all the hydrocarbon storage is in the
fractures with no contribution from the matrix. Thus in this
instance the fractures provide both the storage and the necessary
permeability to achieve commercial production.
Matrix/Fracture Interaction
No Secondary Mineralization
Good luck or a teaser? When the natural fractures are open and
have a very small to negligible amount of secondary mineraliza-
tion the hydrocarbons move from the matrix to ~e fractures in an
unrestricted way.
How quickly the fluids move from matrix to fractures is con-

K JED A.
12000 -r--lI:---+--t"-1,..{j-'l--4--H-r---r---------,

11 000 t--It---1~--\~rIIl-<\---+-"'-+-+-I......,I_-----__1

10000 t--+---<t--1t-HllP-+--+--<--++I-~--------l

.....t-+HI_-----__1
9000 t-----tt--+-+-+.It--......;~
.,.
r;;j 8000 .--+-~:---\--t\-~t--t--<-+*'-+---------1 _A.IolI'lBI.j)%
-..-11. MI'lEll.l~

~ 7000 +-'\----Il--\--\iH~"t--~
.....~f_+-------_{ --e.1oltlER~~

.. OIollNEIl.:JOlll

!o 6000 t-~--+-\:--i't--\-~-+........tft\-+---------1 _ _ E.lIINEll_

F.IoIINIO~O%

::. 5000 t--~--"""~-t-+-\-!t't-+-+<tlMIl--------l

- . G . AATIOolIO%
_ I I . AATIOo70%
l!:
II I.AA~~
ti 4000 t---~-~:---lIl--\:_\.--+-....It:J!\_-----___l ~ AA11OoQll%
• _ . AATIOo:lO%
3000 t------'~-....:IIjr;;t-.::lIk-~~~--=r=~~----___l _ . AAT1G-10%

1.E-05 1.E-04 1.&03

FlUICTIIRI'CO.PRSlI.I.UlY (tIPS"

FIGURE 2: Fracture compressibility as a function of net stress on fracture.

16 Joumal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

trolled by the amount of pressure drop in the fractures, matrix
properties such as permeability, porosity and compressibility, vis-
cosity of the fluid flowing, and fracture spacing or size of the
matrix blocks. These fractures can provide very high initial rates.
The major problem with these types of fractures is that they
might tend to close as the reservoir is depleted depending on the
in situ stress, the initial reservoir pressure and the reduction in
pressure within the fractures. In other words fractures are much
more compressible than the host rock.
If the reservoir is initially overpressured the fracture closure
can be very significant leading to small recovery, big headaches
and major financial losses.
If the reservoir is initially underpressured the fracture closure is
not as significant because most of the closure at reservoir depth
has already occurred. Ultimate recoveries will be bigger than in
the previous case.
Some Secondary Mineralization
I think good luck! When natural fractures have a certain
amount of secondary mineralization the fluid flow from matrix to
fractures is somewhat restricted. From the point of view of pres-
sure behavior during well testing this can be visualized as a natur-
al skin within the reservoir (not to be confused with mechanical
skin around the wellbore routinely calculated).
Partial mineralization is a blessing in disguise. In this case the
secondary minerals will act as a natural proppant agent and frac-
ture closure will be significantly reduced (not completely stopped)
even in overpressured reservoirs. This in tum will lead to higher
ultimate recoveries. The fracture closure will be smaller in nor-
mally pressured reservoirs, and even smaller in underpressured
reservoirs.
Complete Secondary Mineralization
Bad luck!! Even if there is a lot of hydrocarbons within the
reservoir the ultimate recovery will be low. The mineralized frac-
tures will compartmentalize the reservoir leading to very low ulti-
mate recoveries.
Fracture Compressibility
Open or partially mineralized natural fractures are more com-
July 1999, Volume 38, No.7
pressible than the host rock. Fracture compressibility is an elusive
parameter. My recommendation is to determine this parameter in
the laboratory using rocks (cores) from your own reservoir. If
these are not available (and they are not available most of the
time) we have to resort to empirical correlations.
I have estimated fracture compressibility using Figure 2
throughout the years with reasonable success. I must emphasize,
however, that this is only an approximation. The intent of this
graph is not to replace good laboratory work. If you have labora-
tory data you can corroborate the validity or non-validity of the
correlation for your reservoir.
Figure 2 is based on correlations published by Jones(4) for frac-
tures, TkhostoV(5) for secondary porosity including fractures, vugs
and caverns, and my observations regarding secondary
mineralization.
Curve A is for the case of natural fractures without any sec-
ondary mineralization. Curves B through F are for the case of
fractures with partial secondary mineralization. Curves G to L cal-
culate compressibility of the total secondary porosity system
including fractures, vugs, and caverns.
The "ratio" in curves G to L is equal to fracture porosity divid-
ed by the total secondary porosity. Notice that curves F and G are
very close.
To use the chart, if for example the net stress on fractures is
5,000 psi and the estimated secondary mineralization is 50%, the
fracture compressibility from Figure 2 is 2.63E-05/psi.
If the system contains fractures and vugs, and the ratio of frac-
ture porosity divided by the summation of fracture porosity plus
vuggy porosity is 50%, then the compressibility of the secondary
porosity system from Figure 2 is lE-05/psi at a net stress of 6,300
psi.
Measurements of in situ stresses are very important(l-3). If they
are not available, keep in mind when estimating fracture com-
pressibility that in areas dominated by normal faulting the biggest
stress is vertical and approximately equal to the net overburden(6).
In this case the least stress is horizontal and approximately equal
to one-half to one-third the net vertical stress.
In areas dominated by thrust faulting the biggest stress is hori-
zontal and is approximately equal to two to three times the net
overburden(6).
17
Ranges of Recovery
Each naturally fractured reservoir should be considered as a
research project by itself. As such it has to be studied carefully to
estimate recoveries.
I am providing in Tables 2 and 3, however, some ranges of
recoveries based on my experience working with fracture reser-
voirs worldwide for over 25 years. These oil and gas recovery
estimates are presented for different recovery mechanisms and
different types of fractured reservoirs. They are not panaceas. Use
them carefully and only as order of magnitude indicators. There is
no substitute for a detailed study.
Although in general hydrocarbon recoveries from Type C
reservoirs are larger than for Types A and B, the engineer has to
be careful because usually the amount of hydrocarbon-in-place in
Type C reservoirs is smaller.
Reserves
An excellent source(7) regarding proved, probable and possible
oil and gas reserves is the Petroleum Society of elM Monograph
No. I published in 1994.
When it comes to naturally fractured reservoirs I recommend
the use of statistical procedures to quantify the uncertainty associ-
ated with hydrocarbons-in-place and reserves.
Most naturally fractured reservoirs I am familiar with are char-
acterized by low matrix porosities (less than 10%) and low matrix
permeabilities (less than 1 md).
For these reservoir characteristics it is difficult to place a rea-
sonable certainty of volumetric estimates of original hydrocar-
bons-in-place and hence reserves. As a consequence, I recom-
mend to place reserves from volumetric estimates initially in the
possible category. For matrix porosities larger than 10% and
matrix permeabilities larger than I md the reserves can be moved
to the probable category.
Early material balance calculations can provide estimates of
probable reserves. As the cumulative production increases and
with good quality pressure data (long flow and long shut-in times)
the material balance reserves can be moved into the proved
category.
I place production decline estimates from short history in an
unproved category. Long production history leads to reasonable
estimates of proved oil reserves. I do not recommend decline
curves for estimating proved reserves of gas reservoirs unless the
wells are at a late stage of production where a constant surface
compression pressure is being utilized.
Beware of water influx in naturally fractured gas reservoirs. A
well might be producing extremely well. But it is not unusual to
see the gas rate go to nothing once water reaches the
wellbore.
Reservoir simulation, although imperfect, is the tool that in my
opinion provides the most reliable source of information for esti-
mating recoveries and proved reserves. A significant amount of
high quality data and a rigorous characterization are required. The
longer the production history the more reliable are the forecasted
results.
Early in the life of the reservoir when production history is
short or non-existent, proved reserves can be estimated from well
designed, well supervised interference tests using high precision
pressure gauges. The larger the number of wells involved in the
test the better. In addition to providing reserves, the test will give
very useful information regarding anisotropy.
If the objective is estimating reserves by investigating both
matrix and fractures, I do not recommend pulse tests with short
flow and buildup periods. Long continuous flow times during the
interference test are required to properly investigate both matrix
and fractures.
If there is only one well in the naturally fracture reservoir, I
recommend a long flow period following the collection of a good
initial pressure. An estimate of the radius of investigation leads to
a volumetric estimate of hydrocarbons-in-place within the investi-
gated area. This requires a reasonable estimate of net pay, matrix
and fracture porosity, and matrix and fracture hydrocarbon
saturation.
18
A Review-.and a Look Ahead
Since my early days working with naturally fractured reser-
voirs, I have seen extraordinary advances in the geophysical, geo-
logical and engineering fields. These advances have led to
improved estimates of recoveries and reserves. These improve-
ments will continue.
Over the next few years I anticipate significant improvements
in seismic data to better characterize anisotropy of naturally frac-
tured reservoirs.
There will be advances in the evaluation of whole cores and the
uncertainty associated with estimates of fracture compressibility
will be reduced.
Imaging logs will continue improving and this will lead to
more reasonable estimates of fracture parameters.
More, better and more realistic well testing and reservoir simu-
lation models will be developed. Simulation grids will be
improved. Software "friendliness" will be a big part of these
models.
Hydrocarbon recoveries will continue increasing as more devi-
ated and horizontal wells are drilled to properly intersect vertical
and high inclination natural fractures.
Many of the currently producing "conventional" reservoirs will
be recognized as being actually naturally fractured, although in
some cases it might be too late.
REFERENCES
1. AGUILERA, R., Advances in the Study of Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology. Vol. 32.
No.5, pp. 24-26, May 1993.
2. NELSON, R., Geologic Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,
Contributions in Petroleum Geology and Engineering; Vol. I, Gulf
Publishing Co., Houston, TX, 1985.
3. AGUILERA, R., Naturally Fractured Reservoirs; PennWell Books,
Tulsa, OK, 1995.
4. JONES, F.O., A Laboratory Study of the Effects of Confining
Pressure on Fracture Flow and Storage Capacity in Carbonate Rocks;
Journal of Petroleum Technology. pp. 21-27. January-February,
1982.
5. TKHOSTOV, B.A., VEZIROBA, A.D., VENDEL'SHTEYN, B.Y.,
and DOBRYNIN, V.M., Oil in Fractured Reservoirs; Izd. Nedra,
Leningrad, 173-197, 1970.
6. KING HUBBERT, M. and WILLIS, D.G., Mechanics of Hydraulic
Fracturing; Petroleum trans., AIME, Vol. 210, pp. 153-163, 1957.
7. Determination of Oil and Gas Reserves; Petroleum Society of CIM
Monograph No. I, Calgary, AB, 1994.
8. AGUILERA. R., Geologic Aspects of Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs; The Leading Edge, pp. 1667-1670, December 1998.
9. COALSON, E.B., HARTMANN, D.J., and THOMAS, LB.,
Productive Characteristics of Common Reservoir Porosity Types;
Bulletin of the South Texas Geological Society, Vol. 15, No.6, pp.
35-51, February 1985.
10. WHITE, K.E., A Petrophysical Evaluation of the Slave Point
Formation, Cranberry Field, Alberta; The First Joint Symposium of
the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists and the Canadian
Well Logging Society, Calgary, AB, May 28-31, 1995.~
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology